Narendra Singh @ Raju Singh And ANR v. State Of Bihar And ANR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.54489 of 2018 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -93 Year- 2017 Thana -ROHTAS COMPLAINT CASE DistrictSASARAM (ROHTAS) ======================================================
1. Narendra Singh @ Raju Singh, S/o Late Dev Pujan Singh, R/o Vill.- Sidhauli, P.S.- Dalmiya Nagar, District- Rohtas..
2. Binod Singh S/o Late Naresh Singh, R/o Mohalla- S/316, Dalmiya Nagar, P.S.- Dalmiya Nagar, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Binod Singh S/o Sri Rajeshwar Singh @ Rajesh Singh, R/o Vill.- Sidhauli, P.S.- Dalmiya Nagar, District- Rohtas. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Shantanu Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 08-10-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioners, in the present case, are seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 93 of 2017, registered for offences alleged under Sections 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the complainant he and the accused persons are friends for about ten years and had been in good relationship. It is alleged that the petitioner no. 2 went to the house of the complainant and told him that petitioner no. 1 wanted to sell his agricultural land
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54489 of 2018 (2) dt.08-10-2018 2/3 for urgent work. It is further alleged that the petitioner came to the house of the complainant on 05.09.2012 and told him that he had one Bigha land in his village and want to sell that land and asked for some money. The complainant alleged that he had given Rs.18,00,000/- in the installment of Rs.10,000/- to 20,000/- since 2012 to December, 2016 however, petitioner no. 1 refused to execute the registry of the land. Learned counsel submits that it is a purely civil dispute which has been tried to be given the colour of criminal proceeding. It is submitted that the present case has been lodged by the complainant at the instance of one Ravi Singh who has with an evil design to grab the amount invested by the petitioner no. 1 in the company Ravi Singh and the present case is counterblast of the case of petitioner no. 1 against said Ravi Singh. Learned A.P.P. for the State is present and has opposed the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the entire thrust of the allegation of entering into an agreement by petitioner no. 1 for selling of the land which the petitioner no.1 is denying, in case of their arrest or surrender within four weeks from today, let the petitioners, above named, be enlarged on bail on his furnishing bail bond of Rs.15,000/- (fifteen thousand) each with two sureties of the like amount each to the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.54489 of 2018 (2) dt.08-10-2018 3/3 satisfaction of the learned S.D.J.M., Dehri in connection with Complaint Case No. 93 of 2017 subject to the conditions U/S 438(2) Cr.P.C.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) R.R.Ojha.
U T